alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Tom W. Ward, certify that:1. I have reviewed this 10-K Report of Exabyte Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.Dated: March 15, 2006     /s/ TOM W. WARD     Tom W. Ward  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 825 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 825

Recognizing the increased risk of sleep apnea among soldiers returning 
    from active duty and the benefits of continuous positive airway 
 pressure (CPAP) therapy on treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in 
     soldiers suffering from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2016

 Mr. Graves of Missouri submitted the following resolution; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the increased risk of sleep apnea among soldiers returning 
    from active duty and the benefits of continuous positive airway 
 pressure (CPAP) therapy on treating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in 
     soldiers suffering from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Whereas 12 to 18 million people in the United States remain untreated for (OSA);
Whereas untreated OSA can lead to heart disease, stroke, hypertension, type 2 
        diabetes, and depression;
Whereas 54 percent of the patients with PTSD who underwent sleep studies at 
        Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were diagnosed with OSA;
Whereas 20 percent of soldiers will develop sleep apnea in their lifetime;
Whereas soldiers are 4 times more likely to develop sleep apnea than non-veteran 
        civilians;
Whereas studies show that 37 percent of soldiers showing symptoms for PTSD also 
        report symptoms of insufficient sleep;
Whereas veterans suffering from PTSD experience fewer nightmares when their OSA 
        is treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy; and
Whereas the lack of public awareness of the disease, poor sleep habits during 
        active duty, and the effects of PTSD among veterans that lead to poor 
        sleep leads to many undiagnosed, untreated, and severe cases: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports raising public awareness of sleep apnea, 
        especially for United States soldiers and veterans;
            (2) supports providing access to care for soldiers and 
        veterans with sleep illnesses such as obstructive sleep apnea 
        (OSA);
            (3) encourages all United States soldiers and veterans to 
        seek and maintain healthy sleep habits both during and after 
        active duty; and
            (4) further explores continuous positive airway pressure 
        (CPAP) as a viable treatment for OSA in patients with 
        Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019044EN.01007602.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/76

---

Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-708/18)

(2019/C 44/102)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 030 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Case R 2113/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;
  or |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration;

or

| — | alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered;

| — | award the costs in the applicant’s favour. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.

---
#### State v. Choi

23662

04/24/2002

Affirmed
# C_2020443EN.01001803.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers — Belgium) — X v État belge

(Case C-671/19) (1)

(2020/C 443/21)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
#### Roger Emmett CLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William M. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-6895.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 7, 2005.

Decided Oct. 19, 2005.

Roger Emmett Cline, Petitioner pro se.

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Roger Emmett Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition on the ground that it was untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cline has not shown error in the court’s dispositive procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1296

___________ Samuel Kenneth Willis, * also known as Sharif Willis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 21, 1999 Filed: January 13, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, LAY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Samuel Kenneth Willis appeals the district court's 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether Willis was denied effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment on2 In a supplemental pro se brief, Willis also advances the argument that his

counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine a witness. This argument is outside the scope of the certificate of appealability and we do not consider it. See Richardson v. Bowersox , 188 F.3d 973, 982 (8th Cir. 1999). 2– the basis of counsel's failure: (1) to object to hearsay testimony; and (2) to challenge the government's failure to call the juvenile hearsay declarant to testify. 2
We review de novo the district court's denial of Willis's section 2255 motion. See United States v. Craycraft , 167 F.3d 451, 454 (8th Cir. 1999). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Willis must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We find that Willis's first ineffective assistance claim regarding counsel's failure to object to the admission of hearsay testimony was not raised in his section 2255 motion to the district court and is therefore procedurally defaulted. See Fordv. United States , 983 F.2d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 1993). Even assuming the claim is properly before us, we conclude, after a careful review of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, that Willis cannot prevail under Strickland as to either of his ineffective assistance claims. Because an extensive discussion of Willis's claims would serve no useful precedential purpose, we affirm the district court's denial of the section 2255 motion without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2020423EN.01001301.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Vâlcea — Romania) — SC Valoris SRL v Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Craiova — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Vâlcea, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-677/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Time limit for lodging applications for reimbursement of such taxes - No similar time limit for the reimbursement of sums levied by that Member State in breach of national law)

(2020/C 423/19)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Vâlcea

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Valoris SRL

Defendants: Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Craiova — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Vâlcea, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness, read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State from setting a time limit of approximately one year running from the entry into force of that legislation, which aims to remedy the infringement of EU law, in which applications for the reimbursement of taxes held to be incompatible with EU law must be lodged, failing which such applications will be time-barred.

The principle of equivalence, read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State from setting a time limit of approximately one year in which applications for reimbursement of taxes held to be incompatible with EU law must be lodged, failing which such applications will be time-barred, while no such time limit has been laid down by that Member State in respect of similar applications for reimbursement based on an infringement of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 14, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 14, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0028. DIIONE PIERRE CLAY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14B04991
#### Richard Julius WIESE, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12375.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 19, 1956.

As Corrected Jan. 21, 1957.

*869Ralph A. Myers, Jr., El Reno, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., fpr defendant in error.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is a purported appeal' by Richard Julius Wiese from a conviction in the County Court of Canadian County wherein the accused was sentenced to serve 20 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $125 for driving a motor vehicle on a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

The appeal is by transcript and the evidence is not before us. No brief has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In the petition in error it is alleged that the judgment and sentence was excessive. This could only be determined 'by an examination of the evidence introduced at the trial. Since the evidence is not before us and no brief has been filed pointing out any other alleged error, the judgment and sentence of the County Court of Canadian County is affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
# C_2020390EN.01000701.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 2020 — Mylène Troszczynski v European Parliament

(Case C-12/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union - Article 8 - Parliamentary immunity - Activity not connected to parliamentary duties - Publication on the Member’s Twitter account - Article 9 - Parliamentary privilege - Scope - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity)

(2020/C 390/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mylène Troszczynski (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alonso de León and C. Burgos, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
# C_2019072EN.01003901.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/39

---

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — La Caixa v EUIPO — Imagic Vision (imagin bank)

(Case T-761/18)

(2019/C 72/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fundación bancaria caixa d’estalvis i pensions de Barcelona La Caixa (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, P. Román Maestre, D. Liern Cendrero, D. Gabarre Armengol and J. Rodriguez Fuensalida, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Imagic Vision, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark imagin bank — Application for registration No 14 861 108

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 1954/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Rule that the present action against the contested decision is admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Rule that the present action against the contested decision is admissible;

| — | Find that Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Find that Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was erroneously applied in that decision;

| — | Grant protection in respect of all goods and services sought in the application for registration of European Union figurative trade mark No 14 861 108, ‘imagin bank’, in Classes 9, 36 and 38; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant protection in respect of all goods and services sought in the application for registration of European Union figurative trade mark No 14 861 108, ‘imagin bank’, in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs associated with these proceedings, including the representation costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
June 14, 2000

22843

#### State v. Lopez

Reversed
# C_2021502EN.01000601.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer Finanzgericht — Germany) — Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-825/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - End-use procedure - Authorisation with retroactive effect - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Union Customs Code - Article 211(2) - Scope ratione temporis - Conditions - Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Article 294(2) - Scope)

(2021/C 502/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beeren-, Wild-, Feinfrucht GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 211(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not applying to an application for renewal of authorisation with retroactive effect submitted before 1 May 2016, the date on which that article became applicable pursuant to Article 288(2) of that regulation, even if the decision on that application was adopted after that date.

| 2. | Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 294(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/12 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1602/2000 of 24 July 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue, by the customs authorities, of a new authorisation with retroactive effect for operations and goods of the same type as those covered by the original authorisation is not subject to the conditions laid down in paragraph 3 of that article.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---